Showing posts with label demographics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label demographics. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Quickies: Population And The Economic Model

     Mark “Mad Dog” Sherman makes some observations about population trends and their relation to the Industrial Revolution:

     The industrial socio-economic model required lots of employees, large factories, proximity to resources, whether raw or manufactured, and the city provided these features. During the early phases of the IR the cost of transporting steel, coal, and other parts and resources was so expensive that cities grew up to allow everything necessary from raw materials to energy to final manufacturing or assembly to occur in one place, a place with guaranteed numbers of people looking for work.

     We are at the end of the IR socio-economic model. Whatever is to come will not look like the IR any more than the IR looked like the socio-economic model, which was the Agricultural Revolution which preceded it.

     Will cities make the jump to the next socio-economic model? They were all but non-existent before the IR, why would we need the city after the denouement of the IR? Perhaps we will, I don't know, but I don't see a reason we would.

     Indeed. The city dominated the industrial economy for many reasons. Mark mentions several above. I would add that industrial efficiency militates toward geographic concentration; the costs and difficulties of running a distributed enterprise that requires large amounts of physical capital will always exceed those of running a concentrated one. Also, the typical industrial city is usually on a waterway that supports inexpensive transportation of both resources and goods.

     It’s possible that a major driver of the Information Revolution has been the desire for redispersal. Given a choice, people generally prefer to have some space around them, some green, and the sense of freedom of movement that accompanies those things. But whether that’s been any part of the motivation is irrelevant to the effects of such developments as high-speed digital communications, robotics, and the like. Those things have allowed Americans to spread out yet retain the prosperity and most of the other advantages of Industrial Era patterns.

     As the great Lawrence Peter Berra would tell you, prediction is difficult, especially when it’s about the future. But the trends in motion appear to me to indicate that dispersal will continue, at least in the near term. Some of that dispersal might even be upward, but that must await still further developments.

Monday, March 19, 2018

A One-Way Door

     Some time ago, seized by fear over the escalation of racial hostility – 99% of which emanates from blacks toward whites – I wrote a story about the probable endpoint of the trend, should it continue unabated. If you’ve read it, you know immediately what I mean by the title of this piece. If you haven’t, I exhort you to read it before continuing on. Read the Afterword as well.

     The all-time classic one-way door is death. (I sometimes wonder whether the Grim Reaper was the true inventor of the diode, but...well, never mind.) The dead can’t affect the living, except through the influence of memory. Neither can groups, clans, tribes, or whole societies that have died, whether from plague, extermination, or by auto da fe.

     Races, nations, and generations currently stand before a one-way door. Some of them have laid their collective hands on the knob. Large groups stand behind them, ready to shove them through. You’d think it would be deemed more discussion-worthy than is currently the case.


     The future belongs to those who show up for it. – Mark Steyn

     The Industrial Revolution had many consequences for Mankind’s demographics. Most obviously, it provided Europeans of the Caucasian race with greatly increased wealth. Slightly less obviously, it conferred upon them the ability to range much farther in safety and (relative) comfort than their ancestors. And still less obviously though at least as important, as the Industrial Revolution progressed and expanded, it reshaped couples’ attitudes toward children.

     In a preindustrial society, where work is essentially a matter of manual labor (sometimes augmented by animals), children are an economic asset. They can share at least some of the labor. Moreover, since preindustrial couples produce greater numbers of children, and since preindustrial conditions of life result in a greater percent of deaths in childhood, such a society will value the lives of children less than would an industrialized one. The thought might be unpleasant, but it is so: supply and demand condition even the bonds of family and parenthood.

     As powered machinery grows and increases its capabilities, children become less economically valuable. Should the medical arts progress as well, fewer children will die of the diseases of infancy. The liberation of adults from manual farm labor will also increase their time apart from their kids, as parents use enhanced travel capabilities to work farther from home. These and other effects of industrialization will result in lowered birth rates and, over time, a transition in adults’ attitudes toward children: from economic assets to luxury goods.

     While there’s no clear causal connection between industrialization and the increase in the cost of childbearing and child-rearing, that has happened in every industrialized society on Earth. As people protect the things they value, and tend to value things according to scarcity and cost, parents will become far more protective and indulgent toward their children as time passes.


     Certain competences must be acquired young. Particular aspects of dexterity of body and mind are far more easily mastered by a child than by an adult. For example, few persons of mature years are able to master new languages, or learn how to write in cursive. Mastering the special disciplines of algebra, geometry, and analytical mathematics in adulthood is even less likely. If these skills are not acquired young, the odds are heavily against acquiring them at all.

     Developments that have become visible over the past couple of decades have impeded children’s acquisition of various skills that their parents and grandparents absorbed as a matter of course. Not many kids acquire a legible cursive hand these days. Indeed, some groups discourage the teaching of cursive as “no longer relevant.” Other groups, as incredible as it seems, have protested the traditional curricula of mathematics as unnecessary if not “racist.” If the prima facie skills themselves were of critical importance, the gravity of the matter would be far plainer than it is. However, in all candor, the ability to write neatly in cursive and the ability to find the maxima and minima of a function are of little immediate importance to all but a few Americans.

     What really matter are the meta-disciplines that lie beneath them: precise control of one’s body, the ability to learn in an organized fashion, and the ability to reason logically from postulates and evidence.

     Ironically, the decline in our fertility rate has correlated with a decline in our willingness to take up cudgels in defense of these time-honored roads to learning critical disciplines. Perhaps we’re overawed by the cultists of “educationism,” who’ve been haranguing us that they’re “outmoded.” Perhaps we figure that, considering what we’re paying for the schools, the people who run them must know what they’re doing. Or perhaps we’re simply too tired to wrench Junior away from his Xbox.


     A dear friend has often speculated about “what will happen after the crash.” He’s convinced that an event of some sort will strip us of all the technology we’ve developed over the past century or so: what we have and our ability to make more of it. Though those technologies have become self-sustaining, they were bootstrapped from far more basic knowledge, skills, and tools: pencils, slide rules, soldering irons, and extensive knowledge of the sciences. Many of those who were part of the bootstrapping are gone now; the rest will disappear in a generation or two. Should our progeny lose what we’ve bequeathed them after we’ve vanished, would the kiddies be able to recreate it?

     My friend is of the opinion that they won’t – that there will come a long Dark Age during which our posterity will have to clamber slowly up from the mud, much as the Cro-Magnons did. He has a good case for it. By indulging our children in the “right” to be ignorant of anything except how to use their smartphones and Google, we’ve denied them the bootstrapping competences that were required to produce our current technologies. Never mind that it was with the kiddies’ willing cooperation; the effect will be no less crippling for that.


     No sensible man would want to see the above trends continue. Worse, they tie into the larger demographic trends, in which the most primitive and intolerant segments of Mankind are swiftly out-reproducing the most advanced and tolerant ones. Worse still, the primitives, owing to contemporary, highly pernicious notions about “equality” and “cultural relativism,” are invading and degrading our advanced societies in the process, often with the connivance of influential Marxist and Frankfurt School activist groups.

     These processes constitute a red-carpeted path toward a giant one-way door. The legend over that door is easy to read:

Goodbye To The Christian Enlightenment

     ...but few are willing to read it.

     Some additional reading and viewing for you:

     ...and don’t tolerate anyone calling you “Racist!” for any of it.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

I Try Not To Write Solely To Express Outrage

     Really! Yet there are occasions on which the outrage wins free:

     Fans of “Fixer Upper” no doubt have heard that stars Chip and Joanna Gaines have announced they’re having a fifth child.

     In case you don’t watch the show – I don’t; there isn’t enough bloodshed – the couple at issue, Chip and Joanna Gaines, have also been assailed for their Christianity. But let's get back to the story. A “feminist” has decided to upbraid them for their procreative ways:

     Procreation is becoming a global public health concern, rather than a personal decision. So when people do irresponsible things like having five children, we absolutely need to be calling them out.”

     While having a child or five is a very personal choice, it’s also a choice that affects everyone who inhabits our planet. So while many people might find the backlash unwarranted, it’s actually a conversation we need to have in order to challenge our uncritical acceptance of the life-fulfillment-through-procreation story.

     The “feminist’s” name is given as Kristen Pyszczyk.

     This...person is apparently unaware that the entire First World is disappearing due to the failure to procreate. Of all the nations of the West, only the United States still produces children at approximately replacement rate: 2.07 per couple. Not one other predominantly-white nation – yes, I do think “predominantly white” is an important qualifier – is replacing its dying citizens.

     The shithole countries, which category includes:

  • All of Africa;
  • Most of Asia;
  • Most of South America;
  • And a few spots in Europe;

     ...are reproducing far faster than replacement rate. Only someone who hates the First World – above all, the United States of America – would deem that a development to be applauded.

     So here is my advice to Kristen Pyszczyk:

     I was having a good day before I read that offal. I need more Harvey’s right away.